A Missing Link in Gloss et al. (“From Handmaidens to POSH Humanitarians”)

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 407-410
Author(s):  
John E. S. Lawrence

Among many salient shifts in international development research over the last few decades has been growing legitimacy in recognition/documentation of the “rise of the South” as noted in the UNDP Human Development Report (2013). This has redirected both research and practice beyond just Northern (read “Western”) approaches, opened up new resource flows for “Southern” institutions, and initiated a whole new set of initiatives around “South–South” cooperation (Malik, 2014). To Mahbub ul Haq's original theme of “enlarging people's choices” were added new dimensions of looking beyond just western economies (and solely “economistic” analysis and prescriptions) for solutions to existential threats to sustainable development among the world's poorer nations (UNDP, 1990, p. 9). Fundamental shifts such as these, epitomized in Mahbub's well-known statement on human capacity, provide the basis for the focal article by Gloss, Carr, Reichman, Abdul-Nasiru, and Oestereich (2017) that builds skillfully on a framework, which of course also calls on Amartya Sen's work (so closely aligned with and influential in the Human Development Report series). The result is an original, carefully argued, and, perhaps some will agree, long overdue article synching the broad discipline of modern industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology into a more realistic awareness of how the majority of the world's populations sustain their livelihoods. However, there is a crucial “space” that I-O psychology seems to be still missing, and one barely touched on by this article, and that is the macropolicy environment that brings institutions in government and civil society together in more strategic approaches to developing human “resourcefulness.”

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 395-416
Author(s):  
Jennifer Keahey

Development ethics emerged as a joint critique of economic development research and practice, giving rise to three alternative traditions: human development, sustainable development, and participatory development. The ethical issues surrounding the mainstreaming of these schools have implications for investigators. In this article, I revisit the transformative values at the root of these traditions to articulate common research principles for an international and interdisciplinary field. Ethicists are asking development researchers to deliver actionable and multiparadigmatic understanding by improving measures, aligning values and approaches, and decolonizing knowledge. While these emerging research models can strengthen development relevancy and impact, they are challenging to facilitate and vulnerable to elite co-optation. Not only should the production of knowledge be rigorous and accurate, but scholars also have a responsibility to query power and embrace difference. The principles presented in this article comprise a set of shared values that may be used as a practical guide for planning, conducting, and evaluating development research across methods, topics, and disciplines.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document